Mick Norris wrote:
Actually, you could make it simpler than that, as has been pointed out to me, simply by playing the spare team in the other group

Would you do the allocation of pairing numbers in ranking order? If so you would get matches between supposedly equal teams scattered throughout the season? That's not necessarily a problem as you could then schedule the battle of the respective top seeds for round 9 if you wanted that.

IM Jack Rudd wrote:Nine teams can play each other in eight rounds with the use of triangular matches.

Actually, you could make it simpler than that, as has been pointed out to me, simply by playing the spare team in the other group

I had considered that but I'd assumed that the idea of having teams in a group was that they would play each other. If splitting into groups I think it's preferable to have an even number in each and ideally an even number of groups but 18 doesn't seem to allow that. But as the captain of a team that scored 16 points last season but missed out on promotion to a team scoring 11 I'm aware that the pool system for 16 teams isn't without its flaws

FIXTURES FOR 11 MATCHES FOR ONE DIVISION OF 18 TEAMS
Divide the 18 teams into 2 groups x 9 of equal strength. (As per current 4NCL system)
The teams in each group will then be numbered from 1 – 9 in the same manner as above. (ie: Strongest = 1, etc)
Teams play all others in same group = 8 matches per team.

However, this will mean each round having one team per group without a game.
For that round, the teams in each group with the same number will play against each other (ie 1 v 1, 2 v 2 , etc)

The "inter-group" matches (one of each to be played in during the first 9 rounds) would be played in reverse number order (ie Round 1 - 9v9; Round 2 - 8v8; Round 3 - 7v7; etc).

This would mean that the top teams in each group (according to their perceived strength at the start of the event) would not meet until the later stages (ie Round 8 - 2v2; Round 9 - 1v1).

Therefore, after round 9, each team will have played 9 games; eight against those in the same group and one against a
team from the other group of similar strength. (The results of these matches count towards each team’s own group).

After 9 rounds, the top team in Group A will play the two top-most teams in Group B who they have NOT ALREADY PLAYED, whilst similarly, the top team in Group B will play the two top-most teams in Group A who they have NOT ALREADY PLAYED.

i.e. If the team finishing top of Group A had not already played the top in Group B, they would then play each other, whilst
also playing the next highest-placed team they had not yet faced.
If the top teams HAD already played, they would each face the next two highest-placed teams yet to be played.

The system would then continue down the groups, with the remaining teams each being paired against two others they had not previously met.

Following these matches the 2 groups would then be combined to show the teams’ final places in a division of 18 teams.

The above would then ensure that the teams most likely to be aiming for promotion (ie those towards the top of their groups
after 9 games) would be playing all the others who are also in contention.

An example of the above is shown below, the pairings for which I have based on the alphabetical order of the teams currently shown for Division 3 North on the 4NCL website (5th October 2016)

Group A is shown in alphabetical order, whilst Group B is in reverse alphabetical order – purely to prevent teams with the same name being put together in their “extra round” against the opponents from the other group.

Each team will then have played 11 matches, with the teams who finished in the top two positions in each group having then at least also faced those who finished in the top two places in the opposing group (ie: their main promotion rivals).

NB: It is inevitable, due to 18 teams playing 11 matches, that every team will NOT play 6 of the others in the division.

someone wrote:NB: It is inevitable, due to 18 teams playing 11 matches, that every team will NOT play 6 of the others in the division.

It is equally inevitable, in my opinion, that not every team will play 11 matches in total; i.e. they will have to default matches. I think this system is just as geared up to solving situations with teams not appearing as the 2 pools of 8 format isn't.

Three pools of 6, then after Round 5, the top 2 in each pool go into New Pool 1, the next 2 in each pool go into New Pool 2, and the remaining 2 in each pool go into New Pool 3. You then play all the teams you haven't played before in your New Pool, and carry forward the result against the team in the New Pool that was also in your pool.

someone wrote:NB: It is inevitable, due to 18 teams playing 11 matches, that every team will NOT play 6 of the others in the division.

It is equally inevitable, in my opinion, that not every team will play 11 matches in total; i.e. they will have to default matches. I think this system is just as geared up to solving situations with teams not appearing as the 2 pools of 8 format isn't.

Well, we had the Manx team defaulting a weekend last season in the 2 pools of 8 APA system and we coped with that

Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

I wondered if it was an official communication, or something someone suggested.

Mick Norris wrote:

Alex Holowczak wrote:
One comment:

someone wrote:NB: It is inevitable, due to 18 teams playing 11 matches, that every team will NOT play 6 of the others in the division.

It is equally inevitable, in my opinion, that not every team will play 11 matches in total; i.e. they will have to default matches. I think this system is just as geared up to solving situations with teams not appearing as the 2 pools of 8 format isn't.

Well, we had the Manx team defaulting a weekend last season in the 2 pools of 8 APA system and we coped with that

That wasn't my impression from afar; wasn't one team unhappy because it had 4 blacks in a match against a team who turned out to be their nearest rivals? The IT team appeared to find the weekend challenging.

Ah, I see, yes unofficial - the MCF have been considering ideas about how we might give teams more fixtures in divisions that have more than 6 or less than 9 teams (we play home and away for <6, but can't accommodate more than 10 fixtures per league season), so playing around with fixture ideas is uppermost in some minds

1 of our teams was due to play the Manx team that weekend, and while it wasn't ideal, a solution was found in difficult circumstances

If the Swiss means everything is done and dusted by the end of weekend 4, then the chance of defaults in weekend 5 increases I think

Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

This split into two groups of 9 teams runs the risk of being branded too much as an `arranged deal`... with 8 pre-arranged rounds.
ie, fixing the pairings too rigidly in advance smacks of potential control freakery and fixture manipulation..
Too much `pre -planning` is not really what the league needs...
Whereas the 3 groups of 6 teams, (suggested by Neil), giving a 5 round starter, followed by a three round `structured Swiss`, where the top 4 teams are kept apart (seeded), followed by a final 3 round standard Swiss rounds, could provide a balanced pairings system. which could provide a great final showdown ,and restore a much needed `element of surprise` to proceedings..
And with the seedings.. I`m not altogether sure it pays to be too reliant on such predictive and guesswork, as to who the `best` and `lesser` teams might be.
And where teams have multi entries, I`d like to see these put out more balanced teams, and not just go for top down batting orders.
And certainly its not good to have such teams targeting opponents in future rounds with pre-arranged team orders, designed to `take -out` the big gun opposition.
I`d prefer some element of `surprise` in the pairings, which the latter scheme could provide..
It is good to see 18 teams in the 4NCL `north` pool, and I`d like to have seen this for the `south` group..
If we could push both groups up to 20 teams in future seasons, that would be even better....

David Pardoe wrote:
And certainly its not good to have such teams targeting opponents in future rounds with pre-arranged team orders, designed to `take -out` the big gun opposition.

That's been part of the cultural and sporting tradition of the 4NCL almost since it was founded. That's why fixtures are established well in advance and why matches between the favourites are grouped for the final weekend whenever possible. The 80 point rule reduces the possibilities for board order fixing and strengthening the second team at the expense of the first.

Division 3 North and Division 4 does see stacking up of teams from the same squad in the same division.